Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Nov 1980

Vol. 324 No. 9

Social Welfare (Modification of Contribution Conditions for Benefit) Regulations 1980: Motion.

I move:

That the Social Welfare (Modification of Contribution Conditions for Benefit) Regulations, 1980, proposed to be made by the Minister for Social Welfare and laid in draft, sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, before Dáil Éireann on the 13th day of November, 1980, under subsection (4) of section 14 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, be approved.

The necessity for these regulations arises from the introduction as from 6 April 1979 of the new system of pay-related social insurance contributions. The new system involves, inter alia, changes in the contribution and benefit years for social insurance purposes. Hitherto the men's benefit year commenced on the first Monday in June each year and the women's benefit year on the first Monday in December. The benefit year for both men and women will in future be the year commencing on the first Monday in the calendar year. The first common benefit year for both men and women will therefore commence on 5 January 1981 and the governing contribution year will be the income tax year 1979-80, that is, the year commencing on 6 April 1979.

The existing contribution conditions for disability benefit require claimants to have not less than 48 contributions paid or credited in the contribution year preceding the benefit year in which the claim is made, in order to qualify for payment at the full rates. Reduced rates of benefit are payable if the claimant has less than 48 contributions but at least 26 contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year. Claimants who have less than 26 such contributions in the governing contribution year are not entitled to payment in the new benefit year.

The application of this contribution condition necessitates examination of all claims to disability benefit before the beginning of a new benefit year to ensure that the claimants continue to have title to benefit. Hitherto, in accordance with this requirement, all men's claims have been examined in April and May before the beginning of the men's benefit year in June and women's claims in October and November before the beginning of the women's benefit year in December. The change to a common benefit year for both men and women would necessitate examination of all disability benefit claims in the months immediately preceding January each year. Because of the large volume of work involved in this exercise it would be extremely difficult for my Department to cope with the examination of claims without the risk of delay in the payment of benefit in many cases.

The regulations now before the House are designed to deal with this problem by modifying the contribution conditions for disability benefit. In effect they provide that when a person claims disability benefit the benefit year for that claim will be the year from the date of commencement of the claim. Consequently, the rate of disability benefit applicable at the start of the claim will continue to be the rate payable for one year unless the claimant ceases to claim or the right to benefit is exhausted. The rate of benefit will not be affected, as it may be at present, when a new benefit year supervenes in the first twelve months of incapacity. At the end of this period the claim will be examined on the basis of the person's contributions in the appropriate governing contribution year. Thus the re-examination of claims will be spread over the calendar year and will not have to be undertaken in the pre-Christmas period each year as would otherwise have been the case but for these regulations.

I would like to mention also that these regulations will necessitate a Committee Stage amendment in the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill which was introduced on 16 October. The fact that an amendment to the Bill is arising at this early stage of its existence indicates the need for speedy enactment of that Bill; otherwise, the task of the Joint Standing Committee on Consolidation Bills would be made more difficult and onerous.

Regulations modifying the contribution conditions for unemployment benefit were approved in 1956. The proposed modification for disability benefit purposes is on similar lines and is intended to avoid possible delay in the payment of benefit at the commencement of each year. In the circumstances I now ask the House to approve of the Social Welfare (Modification of Contribution Conditions for Benefit) Regulations, 1980, in draft.

I hope that the Minister now feels himself to be extremely familiar with all the intricacies and provisions that will be enacted as a result of this order being passed. I thank him for his long and comprehensive statement which I am sure has made him fully aware of all the nuances of this change. If it has, I doubt if it has made the ordinary applicant for disability benefit very much more aware of what effect the change may have on his circumstances. I should be less than honest if I did not confess that I find extreme difficulty in interpreting the amending order and in finding much joy or consolation in the explanation which the Minister sought to give the House. I hope he understands it better than I do having listened to him. It is slightly complicated to say the least of it.

I think the basic effect of the order is to bring about a change in the benefit year, to standardise the two benefit years between males and females, have them start at the same time and to bring about a rationalisation between them and the tax year. What I was concerned about and what is probably the only explanation that the applicant for disability benefit would look for is to know whether the effect of the order may be that if an applicant is to be paid at the standard rate in the first year of payments and have his situation reviewed on the expiry of that year there might be a situation in which an applicant might have been entitled to an increase in benefit some time during that year which he would not get until the end of the year when the review took place. At present he might be entitled to receive that increase at an earlier stage during the year because of an earlier examination of his circumstances.

It seemed to me that the Minister was indicating that, if a new benefit year intervened before the first 12 months of payment to a qualified applicant had expired, the effect of that new benefit year would not be taken into account until such time as there had elapsed a full 12 months payment to the beneficiary. Therefore, in the case of the beneficiary who was not commencing with a full amount of benefit or if his circumstances changed in relation to benefit which might be payable to him in respect of a dependant, his actual weekly payments would not be changed until the first 12 months' payments to him had expired, after which time his case would be reviewed. It seemed that there would be a possibility in that that beneficiaries might not get the amount of increased benefit that they might hope to receive for some time after that.

Regarding the last remarks made by the Minister, what he had to say is an entire vindication of the remarks I have made on two occasions in this House and also yesterday at the Joint Standing Committee on Consolidation Bills, that is, that there is no point in endeavouring to rush through a consolidating Social Welfare Bill especially when that Bill has been on the Order Paper for more than three years and when one finds that already the Minister has to tell the House that the effect of this order will be to necessitate an amendment on Committee Stage to one of the provisions of the social welfare consolidation measures which the Joint Committee began to examine only yesterday.

We would be much more realistic in realising that after the consolidation Bill has been put through the legislative machine at an ordinary pace it may be likely, as in the case of this order, that amendments will be necessary and that these amendments will have to be incorporated into the consolidating measure as it goes through the legislative process. If that means amending the consolidating Bill in order to give effect to the 1981 budgetary provisions, we must so amend it. There is no need for the Minister to get himself into a flap now in an effort to rush through the consolidation measure especially since the 1976 measure was on the Order Paper from the time of the general election until last month without there being any attempt made to process it.

I should like the Minister to give a guarantee that the effect of this order will be to bring more order into the complex labyrinth of social welfare regulations but that it will not have the effect in any circumstances of lessening the amount of weekly payment to a beneficiary in the week in which he is entitled to that payment. With that caveat, I would agree to the passing of the regulation.

I thank the Deputy for his remarks which are very relevant in regard to this regulation. The Deputy's understanding of this very complicated technical regulation is correct. At the introduction of the changeover there would be some small adjustments whereby some beneficiaries would benefit while others would lose, but on balance the net effect is estimated to be an overall gain of £150,000 per year to claimants. That is at present rates and with the present number of beneficiaries. It is inevitable that with the change in the scheme there will be some marginal effect.

The total amount of money paid in disability benefit is approximately £98 million. In terms of this amount the level of the adjustment is very small. The Deputy was correct also that the change is likely to bring more order into the overall system. The whole purpose of the exercise is to spread the benefit calculations so that they can be done efficiently instead of having them all coming together with the introduction of this new measure.

The Deputy raised the question also of the consolidation Bill and said that this measure will necessitate amendments on Committee Stage. Good progress was made yesterday in relation to that Bill by the Joint Standing Committee. However, if we have too many amendments the technical job becomes too complicated. We must have regard to the fact that the amendments would be interrelated not only with direct social welfare measures but with measures which may arise under other Bills such as the Mental Health Bill. This is one of the factors which caused difficulty before. The number of amendments which arose during a relatively short time were so great that the Bill slipped back into virtual oblivion and necessitated a major task in relation to updating it.

Even in getting the Bill back to its present state we had to deal recently with some 250 amendments. There was a total of 1,300 amendments to be taken in. Therefore, I consider it important that this Bill be pressed ahead with and I am very pleased with the progress made with it yesterday by the Committee.

The measure before us is aimed at making payments more efficient and in helping in the massive administrative task involved. The current number of claims in respect of disability benefit is 67,000. This represents a reduction. The administrative task involved in processing this number of claims is very great and involves repeated administrative work. Therefore anything that will facilitate this task is very welcome.

The Minister has agreed that the measure will have a downward effect in some cases. Can he tell us what group of people will be affected in this way and what will be the extent of the effect?

The difference in money terms between the upward and downward effects should represent a plus of £150,000 to the beneficiaries.

But what will it mean to the individual applicant?

It is estimated that about 5,000 people would be affected on foot of the changeover, that is, both upwards and downwards. The total loss of benefit could vary for these limited periods from 60p to £2 per week in the case of men and single women and from 45p to £1 per week in the case of a married woman. This would be for a limited period on average of nine weeks and at the time of the changeover only.

Would those who incur losses in this way be able to recoup the amount involved afterwards?

Yes, If they continued the benefit for the full year they would recover the amount lost.

So, there would not be any permanent loss?

The loss would be only during the changeover period but the total effect would represent a benefit.

It would be a benefit to others but not to those who were suffering the loss.

If they continued to be claimants or became claimants again at the end of the period, there would be a benefit to them.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share